בכורות 36 — parallel

36:1

R. Meir meant that we have fear, but did he actually presume [that he is to be suspected]? The following query was put: Is the testimony of a witness reporting another witness considered as evidence in connection with a firstling — R. Ammi forbids, whereas R. Assi permits. Said R. Assi to R. Ammi: Did not the Tanna of the school of Manasseh teach: Only in connection with a woman is the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness valid? — Explain this [as follows]: It is valid only in respect of testimony which a woman is allowed to give. R. Yemar permitted the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness to be valid in connection with a firstling. Meremar designated to him the expression. ‘Yemar, the one who permits firstlings’. And the law is that the evidence of a witness reporting an eye-witness in connection with a firstling is valid. Said R. Elai: If an animal was not thought to be a firstling and its owner [a priest] came and declared that it was a firstling with a blemish on it, he is believed. What does he teach us? ‘The mouth that bound is the mouth that loosens’. But have we not learnt this: A woman who said, ‘I was a married woman, but now I am divorced’ is believed, for ‘the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens’? — You might be under the impression that there she is believed because if she wished she need not have said anything; but here, since it is impossible that he should not inform [the expert] — for [the priest] would not eat consecrated [unblemished] animals without the Temple walls — I might not have applied [the principle] ‘the mouth which bound is the mouth which loosens’. He therefore informs us [that he is believed]. For, if this were really so, he would have inflicted on it a recognizable blemish and have eaten it then. Mar b. Rab Ashi demurred to this ruling. Why should this be different from the following case? Once, someone hired out an ass to a person and he said to him: ‘Do not go the way of Nehar Pekod, where there is water; go the way of Naresh where there is no water’. But he went the way of Nehar Pekod and the ass died. He then came before Raba and said to him: ‘Indeed I went the way of Nehar Pekod, but there was no water [and still the ass died]. Said Raba: Why should he lie? If he wished he could say ‘I went the way of Naresh’. And Abaye explained: We do not apply the principle ‘why should he lie’ where there are witnesses! — But is the analogy correct? There [we are witnesses that] there certainly was water [on the way of Nehar pekod], but here, [in connection with the firstling], is it certain that he caused the blemish? It is only a fear, and where there is only a question of a fear we do say ‘why should he lie’. Rabina sat [lecturing] and reported this tradition without mentioning the authority. Said Raba junior to Rabina: We learnt this in the name of R. Ela. R. Zadok had a firstling. He set down barley for it in wicker baskets of peeled willow twigs. As it was eating, its lip was slit. He came before R. Joshua. He said to him: ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and [a priest] who is an ‘am ha-arez’? R. Joshua replied ‘Yes’. He thereupon came before Rabban Gamaliel. He said to him. ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and a priest who is an ‘am ha-arez’? Rabban Gamaliel replied ‘No’ . R. Zadok said to him: ‘But R. Joshua told me "Yes"’! He said: ‘Wait until the great debaters enter the Beth Hamidrash’. When they entered the Beth Hamidrash, the questioner arose and asked: ‘Have we made any difference between [a priest] who is a haber and one who is an ‘am ha-arez’? R. Joshua replied ‘No’. Thereupon Rabban Gamaliel said: ‘Was not the answer "Yes" reported to me in your name? Joshua, stand on your feet and let them testify against you’. R. Joshua stood up on his feet and said: ‘How shall I act? If indeed I were alive and he were dead, the living can contradict the dead. But since both he and I are alive, how can the living contradict the living’? And Rabban Gamaliel was sitting and discoursing while R. Joshua stood on his feet, until all the people murmured and said to Huzspith the interpreter. ‘Silence’. And he was silent. MISHNAH. A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS ‘I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING AND IT IS BLEMISHED’. GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A priest's word is taken if he says [to an expert]. ‘an Israelite gave me this firstling with a blemish on it’. What is the reason? ‘People are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’. Said Raba: We have also learnt this: A PRIEST'S WORD IS TAKEN IF HE SAYS ‘I HAVE SHOWN THIS FIRSTLING AND IT IS BLEMISHED’. Now, what is the reason? Is it not because we say ‘people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’! — [No]. There, where it is a case of consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts], he will not eat but here, since priests are suspected, they are suspected. R. Shizbi raised an objection: He who says to one who is not trustworthy with reference to tithing. ‘Purchase on my behalf produce from one who is trustworthy or from one who tithes’, he is not believed. Now why [is this so]? Let us adopt the principle that ‘people are not presumed to tell a lie which is likely to be found out’? — The case is different there,

—

36:2

for he can excuse himself by some subterfuge, [saying, ‘As far as I am concerned, his word is taken’]. The second clause however [of the Mishnah just cited] certainly supports [Rab Judah's view], for it says: From that man, then he is believed! — There [again] since there is an inquirer, he is afraid. Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba: Whence does R. Judah know this? [It is my own ruling]. I taught it to Giddul and Giddul taught it to [R. Judah]. And this is how I imparted it to him: An Israelite's word is taken when he says: ‘This firstling I gave to a priest with a blemish on it’. [If it refers to] an Israelite, surely this is obvious! — No. The statement is required for the case where [the animal] was small [when he gave it to the priest] and it grew up. You might have the impression that the Israelite cannot now establish the identity [of the animal]. He therefore teaches us [that it is not so]. In Sura they reported this in the last version, whereas in Pumbeditha [they reported this] in the former version. The law is decided in accordance even with the first version. Rafram of Pumbeditha possessed a firstling which he gave to a priest without a blemish. The latter made it blemished. One day his eyes were affected. [The priest] brought the [same] animal before him, and said to him, ‘This firstling an Israelite gave to me with a blemish on it’! He [forcefully] opened his eyes [wide] and perceived his fraud. He said to him: ‘Was it not I who gave it to you’? Nevertheless, the incident did not make Rafram anxious, [because he held that] this priest happened to be impudent but everybody was not impudent. Once a case of sarua’ came before R. Ashi. He said: What can we fear in connection [with the animal]? For whether [the owner be] a priest or Israelite, here is a firstling with a blemish on it. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: But perhaps [the animal] belongs to an Israelite and Rab Judah ruled: A firstling of an Israelite must not be examined unless a priest is present? — He replied to him: But is the analogy correct? There, granted that he will not eat consecrated animals without [the Temple precincts], he is nevertheless suspected as regards the priest's property; but here, well, he knew that this blemish was a well-marked one, and why did he bring it before the Rabbis? Out of respect for the Sage. Now, if he did not neglect showing respect to the Sage, will he actually commit an offence? MISHNAH. ALL ARE TRUST WORTHY AS REGARDS THE BLEMISHES OF A TITHING ANIMAL. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Because if he wished he could cause a blemish originally [before the tithing]. But how does he know which goes out [through the door]? And if you will say that he brings out an animal as the tenth and blemishes it, does not the Divine Law say: He shall not search whether it be good or bad? — Rather explain thus: If he wished he could have caused a blemish to the whole herd [of animals before tithing]. MISHNAH. A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF, OR WHOSE HIND-LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE. BUT R. JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF A HIGH PRIEST WERE PRESENT, A FIRSTLING MUST NOT BE SLAUGHTERED EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF AN EXPERT. GEMARA. Both R. Simlai and R. Judah the Prince reported in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi, (another version is: R. Simlai and R. Joshua b. Levi both reported in the name of R. Judah the Prince): The permitting of a firstling abroad is by three persons of the Synagogue. Said Raba: This is so [even] in the case of prominent blemishes. What does he teach us? We have learnt this: A FIRSTLING WHOSE EYE WAS BLINDED OR WHOSE FORE-FOOT WAS CUT OFF OR WHOSE HIND LEG WAS BROKEN, MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE? — From the Mishnah I might have thought that blemishes which are not prominent are also permitted abroad, and the reason why the Mishnah speaks of ‘prominent’ [blemishes] is for the purpose of showing to what a length R. Jose is prepared to go [insisting that even so an expert is required]. He therefore informs us [that it is not so]. Rab Judah said that he was in doubt whether R. Jeremiah reported in the name of Rab or in the name of Samuel [the following ruling]: Three [ordinary] persons are required to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered when blemished] in a place where there is no expert. What does it teach us? We have learnt this: THE ANIMAL MAY BE SLAUGHTERED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THREE [PERSONS] OF THE SYNAGOGUE? From the Mishnah I might have said that even where an expert is available, [three ordinary persons are required to permit it]. He therefore informs us that in a place where there is no expert it is [as the Mishnah states], but in a place where there is an expert, it is not so. R. Hiyya b. Abin reported that R. Amram said: Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling [to be slaughtered] in a place where there is no expert. Three persons are required to annul vows, where there is no Sage. ‘Three persons are necessary to permit a firstling in a place where there is no expert’;

—